Supreme Court Protects Road Accident Victims: No Motor Accident Claim to Be Dismissed as Time-Barred
| Tacit Legal |07 November 2025
In a significant relief to road accident victims across India, the Supreme Court of India has passed an interim order directing all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and High Courts not to dismiss any compensation petitions as time-barred.
This landmark direction was issued while hearing a petition that challenges the constitutional validity of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended in 2019, which reintroduced a six-month limitation period from the date of the accident to file a compensation claim.
Supreme Court’s Observation
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria took note that multiple petitions across the country have questioned the 2019 amendment. Observing that its decision would directly impact all such pending cases, the Court decided to expedite the hearing.
The Bench stated in its order:
“This Court has been informed that there are a number of petitions across the country filed on the same issue and any finding recorded by this Court would have bearing on the pending petitions. In that view of the matter, the hearing of these matters requires to be expedited.”
The Court has directed that:
During the pendency of these petitions, the Tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of limitation as prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”
The matter has been re-listed for hearing on November 25, and the Court has granted two weeks for the parties to complete their pleadings.
The Challenge to Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act The petition, filed by a practising advocate, challenges Section 166(3) as arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconstitutional, contending that it violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner argued that the six-month cap for filing claims severely curtails the rights of road accident victims and defeats the benevolent intent of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was enacted to ensure social justice and compensation for victims of road mishaps.
The plea seeks to:
Declare the amendment effective from 1.4.2022, pursuant to the Government Notification, as arbitrary, ultra vires, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Background of the Provision
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, there was originally a six-month limitation for filing claims. However, the 1994 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 removed this time limit to ensure that victims could approach the tribunal at any time.
In 2019, through Act 32 of 2019, the Government reintroduced Section 166(3), reviving the six-month limitation. The amendment took effect on April 1, 2022, through a government notification.
This article cover the legal point on mact time limit of six months of limitation period as no case would be dismissed on this ground further you can read here important judgements and legal principles laid down by Hon’ble supreme court of India, this article is posted by Advocate Shivaji Rathore (J&K high court jammu) for more important legal topics stay connected with us, on tacit legal we post on YouTube channel also named as Tacit Legal helpful for Law students newely enrolled Advocate in India and other states, Follow us on Instagram also, Read our articles on important Questions of Law. #tacitlegal visit my website Tacit Legal dot in search on google, this website is made from Hostinger and wordpress follow our latest updates for legal news follow us on YouTube also for young lawyers law students helpful for Advocates, this blog is written by Advocate Shivaji Rathore practicing in Jammu and Kashmir high court and district court at Jammu. The website Tacit Legal is available on Google created with Hostinger and wordpress keep in touch and read our daily articles and reporting for law students and advocates as we provide you important legal information on Tacit Legal.in
Author: Advocate Shivaji Rathore
Founder – Tacit Legal | tacitlegal.in
- Minority Cannot Substitute Proof of Occurrence in Rape Cases: J&K and Ladakh High Court
Shivaji Rathore 14-Dec-2025 Jammu, The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that where the prosecution fails to… Read more: Minority Cannot Substitute Proof of Occurrence in Rape Cases: J&K and Ladakh High Court - Compassionate Appointment Cannot Become a Claim for Higher Post: Supreme CourtShivaji Rathore 13-Dec-2025 The Supreme Court on Friday (December 12) held that a person who has accepted a compassionate appointment cannot… Read more: Compassionate Appointment Cannot Become a Claim for Higher Post: Supreme Court
- Supreme Court Issues Exhaustive Guidelines to Streamline 138 NI Act Cases: Mandatory Synopsis, Online Payment, No Pre – Cognizance Summons & MoreSynopsis required for every 138 case filing, Landmark Judgment Shivaji Rathore 12 -Dec-2025 In a landmark ruling aimed at speeding up… Read more: Supreme Court Issues Exhaustive Guidelines to Streamline 138 NI Act Cases: Mandatory Synopsis, Online Payment, No Pre – Cognizance Summons & More
- Jammu & Kashmir High Court Reiterates: Revenue Authorities Cannot Proceed When Civil Court is Already Seized of the DisputeShivaji Rathore 12-Dec-2025 In a significant ruling reinforcing judicial discipline between parallel forums, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and… Read more: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Reiterates: Revenue Authorities Cannot Proceed When Civil Court is Already Seized of the Dispute
- SC: Cash Transactions Above ₹20,000 Do Not Make Debt Unenforceable Under Section 138 NI ActSupreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC View Declaring Cash Loans Above ₹20,000 as “Not Legally Enforceable Debt Shivaji Rathore, 11 Dec… Read more: SC: Cash Transactions Above ₹20,000 Do Not Make Debt Unenforceable Under Section 138 NI Act
Hkg